I want to go camping.

[Accuray]

Does this mean we need to change who we are in order to fit with what "the guy" can handle?

Hi Labug,

I loved this question. I'm stuck in a stalemate of sorts with W where she is not meeting my needs, she acknowledges that, and says she is not going to. It makes her angry that "she has to change who she is" for me to be happy, while she views it has her duty to accept me "as I am" and expect me to change nothing.

I think this is a pretty common dilemma in marriage -- do we ask our partners to change to better suit our needs, or do we suffer with unmet needs in order to accept them as they are?

Should we be willing to change in order to better suit our partners, or do we owe it to ourselves to be true to who we are?

All good things to think about -- and I've spent a LOT of time thinking about it. Here's where I landed:

There are many things "about you" that make you who you are, but you don't define yourself according to all of those attributes. For instance, I don't personally like dogs, but I don't define myself as a "dog hater", therefore, choosing to tolerate dogs doesn't force me to sacrifice who I am, because I don't define myself that way, it's not that important to my integrity.

I guess the point is, the set of things that "define you", and are important to your integrity is probably a pretty short list, and I do think you need to be true to those things whatever they are. Those are things you do not compromise on, where you set and enforce boundaries, and you're ready to blow up a relationship if your partner cannot be comfortable with those boundaries being maintained.

The stuff that's not on your integrity list? Be willing to change it.

In addition, I think there's an important distinction between "adopting new behaviors" for the benefit of your spouse, and fundamentally changing "who you are". If I fell in love with a woman who loved dogs, I could change my behavior to play with the dogs, clean up after the dogs, look the other way if the dog is destroying the house, etc. I could make those behavioral changes for my spouse's benefit because it would be more important to them than me. I could NOT re-mold myself into a "dog person", because that's not who I am, and I wouldn't have the capacity to do that.

This same distinction of behavior versus identity can be extended on many fronts -- your spouse wants you to be more sexual? You can act more sexually for their benefit, but you can't fundamentally change your sexuality. More of a homebody than a social butterfly? You can learn to socialize for the benefit of your spouse, but that doesn't force you to change "who you are"

I hope that makes sense -- it doesn't make any sense to my wife.

I guess I can also boil it down by saying "don't sweat the small stuff". If it's big, treat it with mad respect. If it's not, compromise and negotiate for the sake of your union.

Accuray